Open world is meh

this should be the best genre. Unfortunately it's become a genre of a lot of big budget hype, pandering to the masses. These are the games I've played this gen

Batman Arkham Knight - Great graphics, presentation and mechanics. Good mix of action and puzzle solving. But what else is there here really? It's pretty standard action fare and the batmobile scenes are frustratingly repetitive. I finished it. It was ok. I can't see myself going back.

GTA V- A lot of stuff to do in a huge well detailed open world. You either like the GTA universe or you don't. I find a lot of the characters off putting and the side activities really aren't that fun. Great graphics and world though.

AC Syndicate - better than unity but still leaves something to be desired? Personality and fun? AC games are so cookie cutter at this point. Great open world again and graphics but the game itself is meh

Watchdogs - Again great looking open world. Poor story and characters. Boring. Activities just thrown around the map in ubisoft style with little purpose except to feel like chores to do

The Witcher 3 - top of the line graphics. Solid rpg. A lot of dialogue. Good game overall but not really deserving of best rpg ever. There really isn't enough rpg to it. Character development is pretty scripted and most of the game doesn't have as much depth as it appears.

Infamous Second Son- Fun action game and powers levelling tree. Good graphics. World does not feel alive. Overarching story is ok. Nothing that great here though. Replayability is very limited. So is hte world itself

Also played Shadow of Mordor and felt it was easy overhyped and repetitive as well. Overall though these games give you free roam without a whole lot to do. Great graphics. Big budgets. Should these companies really be heralded for that when they have as much money as they do? Other than being big budget high tech games there really isn't much here to be excited about in what should be the most groundbreaking genre.

I think the same can be said about 1st person shooters and platformers though. Just better graphics and games aren't that great.

I loved Arkham Knight despite it running TERRIBLY on pc. Im a big fan of the series, so there has to be some bias. GTAV was kind of a letdown for me. The world was absolutely gigantic, but pretty empty, as well as the story not really branching out in interesting ways like IV or SA did. I think Syndicate is fantastic, a huge step up from Unity, but Ubisoft needs to learn to flesh out their main stories more. Watch Dogs, despite the abyssmal optimization, was actually pretty good IMO, not great, but fun. Shadow of Mordor was pretty great, but the story needed to be developed way more. And the Witcher 3, I love the stories of the quests, how they branch off in ways you wouldn't expect. The optimization is crappy though.

I'm so glad you started this discussion. It's something I've been preaching for years but NOBODY LISTENS! Open world games tend to sacrifice crucial elements that a game needs. They must, otherwise deadlines cannot be met. Usually, that something being sacrificed is narrative and gameplay.

I don't mean gameplay as in "how much stuff can I get, how many fetch quests can I do, how many guys can I kill!". That is not solid gameplay. Gameplay is usually a fluid mix between combat, exploration, and some kind of item-system that integrates and SUPPORTS the narrative. There's that narrative word again. The story. The heart and soul and center of any game. The ink to the pen to the pad that should be the foundation of EVERY game.

I am going to use Naughty Dog as an example of creating a successful blend of story and gameplay--and they do so using a linear approach. They focus on story and when it supports the story, their environments do open up for great exploration, larger depth, and combat. But they aren't open world typically. They are linear, epic set pieces that push the narrative. That's what makes their games great.

Open world IS meh. I'm glad somebody said it. None of my favorite games are open world. They can have open elements, but if they focus too much on open world, they are going to sacrifice the best part of gaming.

Shot to the heart. And you're to blame. Darling, open world makes for a bad game!

Depends on your biases. I only like certain open-world games. The Witcher 3 I thought was fantastic, as is The Elder Scrolls series, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed 2 and 4, the first 2 Infamous games, and even Shadow of Mordor. Everything else falls short in one way or another.

go play mmos.....

Well to each their own. Out of the games you've listed I've played Batman: Arkham Knight, GTA V, Watch Dogs, and The Witcher 3 and I thought they were all excellent games, well perhaps not Watch Dogs although it was still quite good. I play quite a few big budget games and personally I feel that the vast majority of them are fantastic games.

I agree. Most open world games are unable to take on the responsibility of open world. What tends to happen is that most devs default to fetch quests and meaningless item collection in which the final gameplay experience is more like a chore. The Witcher 3 was the most painful to me because it penalize the gamer for exploring outside of the main story or side quests making the overall world just big and pretty with no life to it. Open world games are a challenge to make because the developer has to figure how to make the world engaging with the gameplay and not big and free roaming for the sake of marketing. I believe that developers should explore the option of make the world traversable and less "open world". With this traditional structure and openness, it gives the game direction and makes the overall design more meaningful. The most recent one that comes to mind as an example is Bloodborne.

I prefer Far Cry 4 over all of them. At least, it has a reset outpost mode if I'm not looking for targets of opportunity. I much prefer the island environment of Far Cry 3. But, Far Cry 4 has a Buzzer which allows me to traverse the game world high above at will. Plus, all other vehicles now allow an AI partner to ride shotgun or drive.

@twalls27: What you're describing is exactly why The Witcher 3 is arguably the best game of the last decade.

The Witcher 3 delivered a range of stories and characters that put most of the best linear games to shame - and it did it in a way that supported and enhanced the massive, beautiful world the game was set in. For the first time in the series you really felt like the witcher Geralt, travelling from town to town, always on the move, and always encountering monsters who pay you to slay some beasts. The open world gameplay perfectly supported the character's profession and his nomadic way of life. Moreover, the central story was mostly linear, but structured in a way to encourage exploration throughout the various regions of the open world. Throw in the many consequences to your actions that you'll see when simply wandering the roads and backwaters of the world (seriously, this was *not* the sort of game that you want to fast-travel in), and...well, the open world gameplay and narrative excellence found a perfect marriage.

@Planeforger: I sincerely hope you are right. Not saying it can't be done. Just haven't seen it yet, imo. The best open world games have so far only entertained me in straight up action or looting. I've had my eye on The Witcher 3 for a while now. Just haven't pulled the trigger.

The Witcher 3, InFamous: Second Son, and Batman: Arkham City does it well for an open-world games and I played just about all open-world games for decades but Witcher 3 really surprise me in a lot of ways what a true open-world should be like.

I remember ps2 era we didn't get enough open world games then last gen we got a few more but too many fps and now we got so many open world games.

I don't think it's a problem of the genre. It's a problem of the people making video games. FPS's and MMO's have gone through the same thing in the last generation. Tons of people making shooters and MMO's, just because WoW, Call of Duty and Battlefield were successful. Now, it's Open World games, and MOBA's that are the darlings of the hype train.

Ive noticed a pattern with open world games. Either are empty with nothing much to do, or the side questing is repetitious and unimaginitive to death. I cant really say for ubisoft since I quit buying anything with uplay attached to it. But bethesda really takes the cake. Look really deep in fallout 4 and theres nothing. Then we have avalanche. I really hoped they would defferenciate and advance the Just cause formula, but they didn't. Go around destroy land marks and liberate stuff with some additions. The same pattern is followed by mad max with the only differences being the setting and the car customisation. The whicher 3 puts a lot of effort on its side quests though.

I don't have a problem with open world games. I'd rather play a mediocre open world game than another cover shooter.

Witcher 3 imo is an example of open world done right because it was able to provide the focused story of a linear game whilst being open world. Also, the open world really enhanced the experience of the game. You really felt like you were Geralt, wandering from village to village taking on contracts, earning money and buying recipes for potions that you need to take down that monster. Places like Novigrad are truly incredible.

I also think MGSV did open world right. MGSV really made use of its gameplay systems to create the ultimate infiltration sandbox. Tons of variables, a dynamic open world, intelligent AI... simply put a masterpiece.

Open world is meh only if they don't do it right. But when done right, it can be one of the most immersive experiences out there. But in the end of the day we need both types of games and its a shame that we have so few linear games coming out these days. At least there's Uncharted 4 to look forward to.

ubisoft have kind of spoiled my enthusiasm for open world games. despite that i still picked up ac syndicate a few weeks ago, just because i saw it for £12 on amazon and thought it's worth a punt. and surprise surprise it's just the same as all the other open world games they make. there's some nice ideas but the core game just has no direction. you finish the opening sequence and you get a map with a handful of missions that you're told not to attempt until you reach a certain level and a ton of repetitive and dull side activities that you use to level up.

i just want to play the bloody game not sit grinding for hours just to get xp that gets me some basic power / weapon that i really should have had from the beginning to make the game more fun from the start. dishonored gives you blink from the beginning, gives you a semi open world, a mission, a direction, a coherent story, intelligent level design and mechanics and it's awesome. with ac you complete the missions in one area which unlocks another part of the map and then you've got to do the same level up / side quest shit all over again. the lack of understanding from ubisoft about what makes a game fun, compelling and compulsive is astounding. it's a shame because there's some nice ideas in there but as usual they're lost beneath a pile of mediocre gaming filler

Someone needs to clean house at Ubisoft. For like 6 years, every open world game they make is the same. Super light/underveloped on the story, a ton of collectibles to cover up this deficiency. Your guy is beaten up, or otherwise stripped of his abilities, he then has to take back territories one by one, leveling up terrible skill trees while climbing some sort of tower to reveal locations. While I love the AC series, and am liking Syndicate, damn, every series they have is the same.

I don't totally agree, i felt The Witcher 3 was an amazing game, but at the sametime something in the open world was still missing, it wasn't really so amazing how it could have been, i felt more amazed playing for the first time at GTA V. Even Metal Gear Solid V lacked in some way on the open world side. I think that mixing The Witcher 3 story with MGSV gameplay and GTA V open world would make a fantastic game. Open World games must still improve for sure, but GTA V, The Witcher 3 and MGSV are without any doubts some of the best of the genre and three of the best games i have ever played.

PS I played Batman Arkham Knight too but i don't see it too much as an open world game, or let's say that even if it's right to consider the game that, it's just not comparable with the open worlds of the three games i mentioned before in my post.

The problem with MGSV is that the open worlds are nothing more than playgrounds. It's Afghanistan in the 80;s, yet there are no people herding animals, no villages with Afghanis in them, no people period except for the soldiers in checkpoints and strongholds. There are hardly any animals even. This was one of the most crazy places on Earth in the 80;s, and yet there aren't any Muhjadeen fighters going against the Russians. You can really tell the plug got pulled on Kojima by Konami like 2/3 of the way through.

Exactly.

@hillelslovak: yep i think that's an opinion many would agree with. i remember a few hours into far cry 3 when it first came out thinking this feels uncomfortably close to assassin's creed with the climbing towers to unlock the map, cookie cutter side missions, and other similar mechanics. then with splinter cell blacklist recognising the same hide / detection system as far cry and how sam's movement now felt more like altair than the original sam fisher. then watch dogs and yet another game shamelessly lifted from the same open world template. for such a large and wealthy company there is a woeful lack of creativity and innovation in their games. even the more casual gamers that i speak to are bored with them

I still like Assassins Creed, and I'm really digging The Division. AC, I like how they've changed the mechanics in Syndicate and Unity just enough to feel kind of fresh. The gameplay isnt what brings me back to the series though, I was hooked in 2007 by the original, and I like the story. I can most def see how people are getting fatigued though. The Far Cry series is the worst now. Everything is copied and pasted. They have absolutely nothing to do with Far Cry, or the xbox Instincts games. I think it would benefit them to stop using the FC license unless they are going to do something, anything relating to the first game. They're boring, shallow versions of one off Apocalypse Now kind of stories. They are just stepping on the grave of the first now imho.

i am a big fan of the series gta v. shadow of mordor was pretty great. gtav i feel that the vast majority of them are fantastic games.

i agree most open world games are unable to take on the responsibility of open world.

@hillelslovak: i've said it for a long time that i can't understand why they can't make a far cry game in the same style as the original one or like crysis. i.e. large open play areas but ultimately following a linear path through the game. then when you finish the game open the map up and allow the player to free roam and do all the side mission / collectible stuff.

they've never been good at open world imo. too much focus on padding the game with filler masquerading as actual worthwhile content. the original assassin's creed was great because of the revolutionary parkour mechanics but the actual missions themselves consisted of things like following people from a distance, sitting on a bench and eavesdropping and brushing against someone and holding a button to pick pocket them. i couldn't believe they could come up with such an awesome premise and those were the best ideas for missions they could come up with. just awful. as was riding the horse between locations super slow because you'd get chased by guards if you went too fast like there was some kind of speed limit back in the days of the crusades :/

they really need to change their approach to how they construct games and make better use of their ideas, and stop obsessing about cutting corners and recycling mechanics so they can churn out yearly installments

@hillelslovak: i think you have the wrong expectation from msgv's open world. It was never meant to have all those things. The thing is nothing is really meant to happen outside of the bases in the game. It's basically bases and roads connecting them together.

The open world was essential in providing the ultimate infiltration sandbox.

Sorry, but they promised us a living, breathing world. It is not. I still love it though.

i strongly disagree with open world games being "meh", i like to have the freedom to do whatever i like, and how i should approach different missions and goals... of course there are certain amount of mechanics that remain the same within the game or the genre but being able to create or just have the sense of creating "your game, your style" is better than a linear game... there are trade-offs though, linear games may seem to have better stories since it's linear and the story is uninterrupted with side missions / quests, on the other hand character development does have more meaning in open world games...

I like the premise as well I just don't think developers are really making these games as good as they could be. To be honest this the only genre I play because it's what I want in games but I really did not enjoy any of these games that much. I can try to sell myself on the hype but that's just my opinion. I really think these games are very overhyped. Batman Arkham Knight probably did the best job of doing some really cool stuff as far as mixing action and puzzle solving with a good overarching story and characters. I also really like how the joker kind of seamlessly appears and how the game kind of transitions in real time and does some pretty cool graphical tricks. But a lot of the game is very forgettable and frustrating as well. Also liked what LA Noire was starting to do but really didn't capture what they could have. The rest of these games are really just more of the same. GTA is a big budget game but really isn't that good imo. Just Cause, Mad Max I haven't even touched because I know they are more playgrounds and technology showcases than actual games. Bethesda has a nice working model but even their games are all the same after a while. I really liked Oblivion and Fallout 3 in particular. But they are all the same after a while.

GTA, Batman, The witcher all deserve credit for their attention to detail graphically but I just want something different. This is a problem with games in general though. There is such a focus on that. It's like MLB the show. If you go to those forums people are sticklers for detail. Amazing attention to detail in the game as well but if you actually play it the game itself is pretty boring and not that innovative or creative. I really question if developers nowadays even understand what that is and if it's even their focus. They are trying to sell games.

The only dev that does open world badly is Ubisoft. I LOVE open world games especially those from Rockstar and Bethesda.

So, the best way to play w3 would be mainly main missions + a small number of side quests? Just asking because I've yet to play it.

Also, what about Fallout 4 in this regard (if you've played it)?

well, every open world game tends to be repetitive if one does the same kind of missions back to back, one of the first open world games that i liked was far cry 2, it got bombarded because some felt that it didn't have variety in gameplay... bf: bad company was the second one that i liked, it wasn't truly an open world game but it gave you enough freedom to approach the missions in any way you want and it had destructible environment...

anyhow the key to keeping open games fresh is mixing and matching various missions, otherwise any open world game can be (in no particular order) a linear story, a linear hunting game, a linear scavenger hunt, collage of retro games (as mini games), etc etc...

the criticism wasn't really to do with variety in gameplay, it was the stupid malaria system, the fact that every single person in the world chased you down to the death whenever you stepped outside a village, the eagle eyed bullet sponge enemies who'd spot you and shoot you from miles away, the constantly respawning guard posts, the complete lack of stealth, the lack of prone, the awful travel system and how you often ended up having to walk for miles to reach a destination, the constant jamming of guns and the need to repair. all the awful memories are flooding back lol. terrible game...

@Macutchi: i can see why you diliked it, it was a tough game to like, the only problem i had with it that i could not continue with side missions after i completed the campaign

Agree with most of that. I would actually like to see more games with guns breaking down. Maybe not as fast as in FC2, but I think it's a mechanic that could be great if tweaked. The ai in the FC games has been terrible since FC2. Stealth flies right out the window because enemies can see you, with your silenced sniper rifle, from a mile away, and pepper you with stray assault rifle fire. The traveling and lack of prone made me not want to go back to it.

GTA, Bethesda games, The witcher probably give the most complete games as far as things to do exploration and side activities as well as an engrossing main quest. The other games are fairly rinse and repeat in comparison and not quite as good although the batman series does try to be something different. My issue is there is too much of a focus on making these games interactive entertainment when they are missing the mark in the process. The witcher ahs a huge amount of dialogue and after playing it for a few hours i find myself skipping most of it. It gives the gamer some incentive to explore but it's also not as much of an rpg as it could be. The witcher 3 is a really good game I'm not knocking it too much. A lot of work obviously went into making it as good as it is. But as far as fun factor I don't know. A lot of these games feel like interactive entertainment vs games I guess. I get most gamers don't want to delve into the inner workings of games but some do. GTA a lot of the game itself involves driving from one local to another and rinse and repeat. The characters are also off putting to me. There is a lot of stuff to delve into outside the main story and tons of missions but a lot of it is really not that worthwhile.

If you don't like GTA there also just isn't a whole lot to choose from. The other offerings like I said Just Cause etc are more over the top action in comparison. The witcher is still pretty standard fantasy fare.

I'm looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077 and Mafia III but that's about it. I also feel like they will miss the mark in some way. Mafia II had a good main quest but really did not have a very good working economy or things to do outside the main story. The missions themselves were also fairly standard action fare.

What I'd like to see is something different. Like a detective drama set in an open world that allows you really getting into what it's like to be a detective. LA Noire was kind of a one trick pony with the interrogation and clue collecting stuff. It really wasn't what I thought it could have been. The story and chase stuff was really well done though. I also liked how you worked your way up the ladder and could go to different locals and how they did the notebook. But it would have been better if you really could have investigated in different ways affected the story in different ways and had other things going on as well.

the wear and tear of the guns was imho a nice addition as well, it made the player use different kind of weapons and think before using the ones you have... the stealth art was agreed atrocious, however i don't recall if you had a group / groups helping you like in the past far cry games, that could explain why the checkpoints had enemies every time you went there even if you've cleaned them out... anyways, of course no one has to like a game, it's just a matter of preference...

on another side note i liked the mechanic where you could set grass / foliage on fire to drive enemies out or eliminate them... :)

That part was dope as hell. I wish it wasn't just a superficial aftereffect in 3 and 4.

it didn't help that crysis had come several months earlier and shown how to do intelligent (semi) open world fps dynamic gameplay properly. with far cry having been a crytek franchise i think most were expecting something like crysis in africa and, well we didn't get it. but to each their own, glad you managed to get some enjoyment out of it. i tried really hard to

@Macutchi: since i was gaming only on a ps3 at that time, i missed out on crysis and when it came out on ps3 it was already outdated... :(

i find myself moving away from open world games more and more i am kinda getting sick of that genre altogether

I'm agreeing with OP for the most part. Open world games just aren't all that entertaining lately. I have enjoyed them but the whole genre seems to be in a rut. I'm sure some indie dev will eventually come out with a unique version that brings something more to the table.

That's with Far Cry 2. It doesn't seem to be the case with Far Cry 3 and 4. I do like the way the enemy AI can heal themselves in Far Cry 2. I wish Ubisoft brought that into the later Far Cry games.